Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- 9 Coding Interaction
- 10 Rules for Coding Scheme Development
- 11 Unitizing Verbal Interaction Data for Coding
- 12 Quality Control
- 13 Software for Coding and Analyzing Interaction Processes
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- Appendix
- Index
- References
11 - Unitizing Verbal Interaction Data for Coding
Rules and Reliability
from Part III - Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- 9 Coding Interaction
- 10 Rules for Coding Scheme Development
- 11 Unitizing Verbal Interaction Data for Coding
- 12 Quality Control
- 13 Software for Coding and Analyzing Interaction Processes
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 208 - 226Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Auld, F. Jr., & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. The Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 273–281. doi:10.1080/00223980.1956.9713040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 138–159). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakeman, R., Quera, V., & Gnisci, A. (2009). Observer agreement for timed-event sequential data: A comparison of time-based and event-based algorithms. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 137–147. doi:10.3758/brm.41.1.137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. A method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesley Press Inc. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from https://archive.org/stream/interactionproce00baleGoogle Scholar
Berg, D. M. (1967). A thematic approach to the analysis of the task-oriented, small group. Communication Studies, 18(4), 285–291. doi:10.1080/10510976709362891Google Scholar
Berkowitz, M. W., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Measuring the developmental features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 399–410.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1991). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bilandzic, H., Koschel, F., & Scheufele, B. (2001). Theoretisch-heuristische Segmentierung im Prozeß der empiriegeleiteten Kategorienbildung. In Wirth, W. & Lauf, E. (Eds.), Inhaltsanalyse (pp. 98–116). Köln, Germany: Herbert von Halem Verlag.Google Scholar
The British National Corpus. (2007). (Version 3, BNC XML Edition). JA6. Retrieved using BNCweb (CQP-edition), Lancaster University Computing Services, Lancaster, from http://bncweb.lancs.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
Burtscher, M. J., Kolbe, M., Wacker, J., & Manser, T. (2011). Interactions of team mental models and monitoring behaviors predict team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(3), 257–269. doi:10.1037/a0025148Google ScholarPubMed
Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, R. (2001). Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments. University College London, London.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance, and other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 183–199. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollard, J., & Auld, F. Jr. (1959). Scoring human motives: A manual. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Downing, A. (2015). English grammar: A university course (3rd edn.). Abingdon, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. Jr (1975). Interaction units during speaking turns in dyadic, face-to-face conversations. In Kendon, A., Harris, R. M., & Key, M. R. (Eds.), Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction (pp. 199–214). The Hague & Paris: Mouton Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faßnacht, G. (1995). Systematische Verhaltensbeobachtung: Eine Einführung in die Methologie und Praxis [Systematic behavioral observation: An introduction into the methodology and practice] (2nd ed.). Munich: Reinhardt.Google Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. doi:10.1093/applin/21.3.354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(117), 1–8. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamsky, N. R., & Farwell, G. F. (1966). Counselor verbal behavior as a function of client hostility. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13(2), 184–190. doi:10.1037/h0023397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (2002). An introduction to English grammar (2nd edn.). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 47–58. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(195001)6:1%3C47::AID-JCLP2270060111%3E3.0.CO;2-I3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, J. D., & Weider‐Hatfield, D. (1978). The comparative utility of three types of behavioral units for interaction analysis. Communications Monographs, 45(1), 44–50. doi:10.1080/03637757809375950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I. F., & Götz, D. (2004). A valency dictionary of English: A corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns and adjectives (Vol. 40). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making communication process and outcome in face‐to‐face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225–252. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Group communication research: Considerations for the use of interaction analysis. In Tardy, C. H. (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes (pp. 229–245). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1987). Hedging, fencing and other conversational gambits: An analysis of gender differences in New Zealand speech. In Pauwels, A. (Ed.), Women and language in Australian and New Zealand society (pp. 59–79). Sydney, Australia: Australian Professional Publications.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2008). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1998). Analysing verbal protocols. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 358–362. doi:10.2307/3587591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2009). The influential role of relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(1), 14–30. doi:10.1037/a0013495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E., Quera, V., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Coding interactions in Motivational Interviewing with computer-software: What are the advantages for process researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 284–292. doi:org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E., Quera, V., Burba, M., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Group interactions and time: Using sequential analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(3), 209–222. doi:10.1037/gdn0000052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbe, M., Boos, M., Stein, A., & Strack, M. (2016). SYNSEG–Eine Methode zur syntaxgeleiteten Segmentierung von Kodiereinheiten für die Analyse von Gruppenprozessen. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 47(4), 335–344. doi:10.1007/s11612-016-0345-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, M. W., Kuo, C. L., & Dailey, J. C. (1997). The impact of brainstorming techniques on subsequent group processes: Beyond generating ideas. Small Group Research, 28(2), 218–242. doi:10.1177/1046496497282003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (1981). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA, and London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Langdridge, D., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2009). Introduction to research methods and data analysis in psychology (2nd edn.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2000). Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus‐oriented research. Language Learning, 50(4), 675–724. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Meinecke, A. L. (2014). Observing culture: Differences in US-American and German team meeting behaviors. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(2), 252–271. doi:10.1177/1368430213497066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meinecke, A. L., Rowold, J., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). How transformational leadership works during team interactions: A behavioral process analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1017–1033. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics-Doklady, 10(8), 707–710.Google Scholar
Magnusson, M. S. (1996). Hidden real-time patterns in intra-and inter-individual behavior: description and detection. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 112–123. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.12.2.112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (8th edn.). Weinheim and Basel, Switzerland: UTB.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. L., & Koskela, A. (2010). Key terms in semantics. London, UK, and New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Oh, H. J., Myaeng, S. H., & Jang, M. G. (2007). Semantic passage segmentation based on sentence topics for question answering. Information Sciences, 177(18), 3696–3717. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2007.02.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, W. C., & Cunningham, E. M. (1934). Time-sampling techniques. Child Development, 5(1), 41–58. doi:10.2307/1125795Google Scholar
Poland, B. D. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 290–310. doi:10.1177/107780049500100302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quera, V., Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2007). Observer agreement for event sequences: Methods and software for sequence alignment and reliability estimates. Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 39–49. doi:10.3758/bf03192842CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riethmüller, M., Fernandez Castelao, E., Eberhardt, D., Timmermann, A., & Boos, M. (2012). Adaptive coordination development in student anaesthesia teams: A longitudinal study. Ergonomics, 55(1), 55–68. doi:10.1080/00140139.2011.636455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, H., & Bonoma, T. V. (1974). A social influence rating method for group interaction and some pilot results on group therapy process. Proceedings of the Division of Personality and Society Psychology, 1(1), 259–262. doi:10.1177/014616727400100188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, R. L., & Staszewski, C. (1988). The unit problem: Some systematic distinction and critical dilemmas for psychotherapy process research. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 25(2), 191–200. doi:10.1037/h0085333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srnka, K. J., & Koeszegi, S. (2007). From words to numbers: how to transform qualitative data into meaningful quantitative results. Schmalenbach Business Review, 59, 29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, W. B. (1992). Describing talk: A taxonomy of verbal response modes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Stinson, C. H., Milbrath, C., Reidbord, S. P., & Bucci, W. (1994). Thematic segmentation of psychotherapy transcripts for convergent analyses. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 31(1), 36–48. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.31.1.36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46(1), 29–48. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschan, F., Rochat, S., & Zapf, D. (2005). It’s not only clients: Studying emotion work with clients and co-workers with an event-sampling approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 195–220. doi:10.1348/096317905X39666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschan, F., Seelandt, J. C., Keller, S., Semmer, N. K., Kurmann, A., Candinas, D., & Beldi, G. (2015). Impact of case-relevant and case-irrelevant communication within the surgical team on surgical-site infection. British Journal of Surgery, 102(13), 1718–1725. doi:10.1002/bjs.9927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (1982). Categories and sequences of behavior: Methods of description and analysis. In Scherer, K. R. & Ekman, P. (Eds.), Handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 362–439). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waller, M. J. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 127–137. doi:10.2307/257088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by